12Th Aoff And State Succession Petitions?

[Cobalt-70]

I laugh at it. The difference is that in the 1800s secession talk was bandied about by Senators and governors. Now it is just bandied about by cranks who no one seriously listens to. One was serious and the other is a joke. We should not dignify these idiots by treating them seriously. They should be either mocked or ignored.

And in this case, I doubt that many of the people signing the petition actually want their state to seceed. Under the First Amendment, they are entitled to their little display or poor sportsmanship after losing the election. Let them express their disappointment through this pointless gesture, and then in a couple of months, they can go back to working within the system to mess up the country.

[Saints Alive]

You mean like the "Im going to Canada" comments made by Rosie and Alec Baldwin in 2004? I wish they would have followed through.

[Alan]

It has been interesting to read many of the contributors on this thread.

It is a basic fundamental principle of democracy that people should be able to determine their own future, government, laws etc. The principle of self determination that the US and UK preach to other countries applies to us too. Therefore, if the majority of the people of Texas or Alaska etc want to secede, they should be able to. Here in the UK we are facing a similar issue soon with Scotland holding a referrendum on whether or not to leave the United Kingdom. The UK government will respect the decision of the people and permit self determination if that is what they choose.

Perhaps the US should do the same. Let a state or two hold a referrendum on secession and see what happens. I don't think any state would secede though, with the possible exception of Texas.

[halconero]

Whether or not secession is legal or not I want to pose a question: Can secession be right?

In times past the church has commites acts of civil disobedience, especially in practicing plural marriage. God's law trumped the laws of man. Plural marriage was right, but not legal.

Revolution and secession may or may not be legal, but that doesn't mean that they couldn't be right. I don't think they are at this moment, but what can we say of the future. Even Doctrine and Covenants 134 makes a provision for rebellion.

5 We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience. (Doctrine and Covenants, Doctrine and Covenants, Section 134)

Rebellion is condemned so long as our inalienable rights are protected. I they are not? It is justified.

[thesometimesaint]

Alan:

The British of 1776 weren't too thrilled to allow one of its colonies to secede.

[thesometimesaint]

Whether or not secession is legal or not I want to pose a question: Can secession be right?

In times past the church has commites acts of civil disobedience, especially in practicing plural marriage. God's law trumped the laws of man. Plural marriage was right, but not legal.

Revolution and secession may or may not be legal, but that doesn't mean that they couldn't be right. I don't think they are at this moment, but what can we say of the future. Even Doctrine and Covenants 134 makes a provision for rebellion.

5 We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience. (Doctrine and Covenants, Doctrine and Covenants, Section 134)

Rebellion is condemned so long as our inalienable rights are protected. I they are not? It is justified.

It's right only when it succeeds.

[halconero]

History is written by the victor no?

Although not a secessionist, I would argue that one of our Canadian's, Louis Riel, was justified in fighting.

[thesometimesaint]

History is written by the victor no?

Although not a secessionist, I would argue that one of our Canadian's, Louis Riel, was justified in fighting.

Tends to be that way.

I think people find a way to make rationalizations for how they act no matter if it is justified or not.

[Stargazer]

That idea was squashed in the American Civil War with its 600,000+ dead. You remember "And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand".

Matthew 12:25

So yes I would fully support arresting, convicting for treason, and putting these secessionist clowns in prison.

As Mark Beesly (sp?) pointed out, Texas v. White made clear that there is no way for a State to legally unilaterally secede. I think the question of whether the United States could legally discharge a State from the Union was not asked nor answered.

That being said, even Lincoln recognized that a right to overthrow the government existed. As he said in his first inaugral address:

This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.

The point being that the revolutionary right must be exercised via force of arms. And thus we have the Civil War, where a segment of the country attempted to dismember the government by exercising the revolutionary right. And thankfully failed to suceed.

As Lincoln also pointed out, he by his election held a legal obligation to preserve the Union, which he then proceeded to fulfill. And thankfully succeeded at.

Sic Semper Tyrannis was not only a slogan of the South during the Civil War, it was also a slogan of the Colonists in the Revolutionary War. To deny that right of rebellion is to admit that we cannot and may not rebel against tyranny, should it occur. This is contrary to the principles that this country was founded on. Unless and until there is tyranny, however, we are not justified in rebellion. And if there were an unjustified rebellion, I would be standing in the streets against it.

I once took oath to support and defend the Constitution against enemies both foreign and domestic. And nobody has ever relieved me of that oath.

[Stargazer]

4) President Packer just told us to not be stocking up on guns, but to be stocking up on food storage.

Well, you don't need to stock up on guns. There number of guns that one possesses is typically a small number, say three: one pistol; two rifles; and one shotgun. That probably constitutes "sufficient for one's needs". Note that Pres. Packer didn't give out any restrictions for ammunition, however. Ammunition serves two purposes: for use in your firearms; and for barter. Potentially, the second might be more useful than the first.

[Stargazer]

already addressed this. The King actually did offer the colonists representation in parliament.

He did? That's new to me. Can you back up this statement?

[Stargazer]

And yet what do we learn? Captain Moroni was wrong in laying the blame at the feet of Pahoran. Pahoran was not witholding assistance, but was hindered by other factions. (Sound familiar?) Those were the kingmen, the prosperous class, who wanted to withhold their substance from the support of the government. Captain Moroni also castigated those who dissented from the country and had seemingly wanted to form their own government.

That turns out not to be correct. You make it seem like it was the Bill Gates and Warren Buffets of the Nephites who were the factions interfering with the war by withholding assistance. Who is this "prosperous class" you speak of, anyway? The Kingmen were those who supported the idea of having a king, i.e. a single ruler, and this consisted of a significant minority of the people, especially those willing to resort to violence to obtain that goal, and it probably included many of those who were not necessarily prosperous. I think you are trying to frame the debate between Pahoran and Moroni in terms of the recent US election, but please, let's be real here. In case you missed it, it was the "prosperous class", i.e. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet and their fellow travelers, who were endorsers of the candidate who wanted to raise taxes.

So what would Captain Moroni do? He would probably do as TSS suggested, and arrest those people signing these petitions to secede from the Union, and tell the 1 percent that they need pay higher taxes. Read Chapters 60 and 61 of Alma very carefully. And he would likely scold both the Democrats and the Republicans for failing to compromise for the good of all the people.

Signing petitions and peacefully campaigning for a political position is not treason. But the Kingmen were not doing this, they were plotting to overthrow the government and were interfering with the conduct of the war. I don't think that you know enough about Nephite tax policy to comment on what tax rate the "1 percent" were paying.

And by the way, if the tax rate for the 1 percent was set at 100% it still wouldn't even begin to cover the simply marvelous deficit in the federal budget. And asking disingenously that they pay "just a little more" is laughable to the extreme. Talk about playing to the politics of greed and envy.

[Stargazer]

You could not be more wrong, sir. The Articles of Confederation were created squarely upon the idea of states being sovereign to the federal government as we're the colonies being sovereign to the English government. The idea of state sovereignty was firmly rooted in the founders by the time the US Constitution was drafted.

Actually, it was the AoC that provided for the "perpetual" nature of the Union. Lincoln pointed out that the Union predated the Constitution by a good number of years. I have just recently re-read his first inaugral address, and it is very eye-opening. I suggest everyone read it, it is most instructive:

http://showcase.neti...ches/1inaug.htm

Here's a relevant part:

I hold, that in contemplation of universal law, and of the Constitution, the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper, ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our national Constitution, and the Union will endure forever -- it being impossible to destroy it, except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.

Again, if the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade, by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it -- break it, so to speak; but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?

Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that, in legal contemplation, the Union is perpetual, confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution, was "to form a more perfect Union." But if [the] destruction of the Union, by one, or by a part only, of the States, be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.

It follows from these views that no State, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of the Union, -- that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence, within any State or States, against the authority of the United States, are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.

In contradiction to what you wrote, the states may be sovereign within their own borders, but that sovereignty is limited by the Constitution, and as such, the sovereignty of the Union, or that of the United States, prevails.

Edited November 25, 2012 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

But again, the U.S. government does not define petitioning for secession as treason. That is your own personal definition, which no one is held to.

And theoretically, if a state did manage to seceed (to it's own detriment, per my opinion), that would not destroy the United States government. The U.S. would theoretically be the exact same government it was before, just with one less state. If it was a government with 13 states, then it would still be a government with 49.

Unfortunately, Abraham Lincoln disagrees with you.

[Stargazer]

I don't have a problem with petitions per say. It is what the petitions say that I sometimes have a problem with.

Oh, petitions are hamless. You can petition that the value of Pi be set at 3.14 exactly, and it won't do you a bit of good no matter how many people sign it.

[thesometimesaint]

And utterly futile.

[blackstrap]

As per Lincoln's speech, he leaves open the door that were a State to petition to leave the Union, and the Federal Gov't were to agree to the seccession, that State could lawfully leave.

[Saints Alive]

I don't see why people get so uptight about the idea of a state seceding, especially if it were in the best interest of the state. Ideally each state would be independent and the federal government would be like a functioning UN.

[thesometimesaint]

That would be the Articles of Confederation the very thing that our Constitution got rid of.

http://www.barefootsworld.net/aoc1777.html

[bluebell]

Unfortunately, Abraham Lincoln disagrees with you.

I guess i'll have to see the quote. (not that it matters if Lincoln disagrees with me or not. He's not the measuring stick that we use to determine whether or not something is either true, or legal).

[thesometimesaint]

I guess i'll have to see the quote. (not that it matters if Lincoln disagrees with me or not. He's not the measuring stick that we use to determine whether or not something is either true, or legal).

Legal he is. True is another question. The Constitution itself provides for no way for a State to secede once it enters into the Union. The Nullification acts of various States were roundly rejected, and the US Civil War decided that issue. There is only one way to secede from the Union. That is by armed Revolution, and that didn't work out real well for the seceding States.

[Erin15]

If we, as Latter-day Saints truly believe that the United States Constitution is divinely inspired, then we must accept that the purposes for which it is established, such as "to form a more perfect union," is the ideal for which we must strive. A union is not created by division. A a union is created with understanding and compromise.

So, at this point, I would have to say that that a faithful Latter-day Saint could not, in good conscience, sign a petition seeking to dissolve the union of the United States of America which God Himself established, and remain faithful to the 12th Article of Faith.

The constitution was divinely inspired to create an enviornment where the gospel could be established, but it is not the gospel, nor is it scripture. It was merely a means to an end, like the discovery of the americas, Martin Luther and the reformation, or any dozen other things we could identify as preperatory steps to the restoration of the gospel which are not actually part of the gospel itself.

Edited November 25, 2012 by Erin15

[mathonihah]

The people of the United States certainly can secede from the federation, destroy the Constitution, or turn it on its head by a democratic vote if they want to. In a democracy sovereignty rests with the people, which means that they can do what they want, including turning their democracy into a dictatorship by a free vote. If all or most of the states seceded, that would indeed spell the end of the constitution, because one of the purposes of the Constitution is to "form a more perfect union" of the States, according to the Preamble. If that "union" was dissolved, then that would spell the end of the Constitution. That may be inevitable in the long run. Indeed, ominous signs are appearing already. But it would a tragedy for the United States which Latter-day Saints cannot rejoice over, knowing that it is an inspired document, and almost sacred to Latter-day Saints.

[bluebell]

The people of the United States certainly can secede from the federation, destroy the Constitution, or turn it on its head by a democratic vote if they want to. In a democracy sovereignty rests with the people, which means that they can do what they want, including turning their democracy into a dictatorship by a free vote. If all or most of the states seceded, that would indeed spell the end of the constitution, because one of the purposes of the Constitution is to "form a more perfect union" of the States, according to the Preamble. If that "union" was dissolved, then that would spell the end of the Constitution. That may be inevitable in the long run. Indeed, ominous signs are appearing already. But it would a tragedy for the United States which Latter-day Saints cannot rejoice over, knowing that it is an inspired document, and almost sacred to Latter-day Saints.

Because the U.S. is a democratic republic and not a pure democracy, a democratic vote does not have the power to do whatever the people want it to do. The founding fathers, who detested pure democracies, were very careful in setting up the country to run more like Rome than Greece for a reason-they did not believe that the people could choose their best interests and were terrified of mob rule (which is all a true democracy is).

And I'm not convinced that removing a state from the federal government would destroy the Union. The Union does not seem to depend on the number of states included. We were a Union before Hawaii and Alaska were added. It seems very possible that we would continue to be a Union if they suddenly left.

[bluebell]

Legal he is. True is another question. The Constitution itself provides for no way for a State to secede once it enters into the Union. The Nullification acts of various States were roundly rejected, and the US Civil War decided that issue. There is only one way to secede from the Union. That is by armed Revolution, and that didn't work out real well for the seceding States.

Many things have been added to the Constitution that weren't there before. If the government wanted to let a state secceed (which they never would), they could make it legal to do so.

All the Civil War proved is that trying to secceed through armed rebellion is very very difficult. The American Revolution proved that defeat is not a forgone conclusion though.